Anti-Parris Mobility:
1690-1700
| 10% Change | Total |
| Down | 2 |
| No Change | 9 |
| Up | 18 |
| Grand Total | 29 |
Twenty-nine anti-Parris petitioners appeared on both the 1690 and 1700 tax lists. Changes in their standing can be hand counted or found by means of a pivot table, using the Data menu. Results can be displayed in a pie chart.
These anti-Parris persisters showed distinct improvement in their economic standing over the decade. Over 60% (eighteen) moved "Up" in rank among Salem Villagers a decade later, a considerably greater percentage than for those who had supported the witch trials. Only two anti-Parris persisters experienced a decline.
Sorting these anti-Parris taxpayers by their wealth in 1690 shows that improvement was widespread among poorer and of middling persisters. Meanwhile those who had been in the top quartile of taxpayers in 1690 held their own; only one person fell out of this well-to-do group over the decade. Calculating the mean and median taxes of pro- and anti-Parris persisters for 1690 and 1700 (Tools>"Data Analysis">"Descriptive Statistics") and comparing their ratios confirms that the anti-Parris persisters outpaced the ministry faction during the decade following the witchcraft episode.
On the surface, the analysis supports Salem Possessed's portrait of the rising economic fortunes of the anti-Parris faction. However, in light of other evidence, the relative decline of the pro-Parris persisters between 1690 and 1700 could well be attributed to the effects of the severe downturn between 1690 and 1695 rather than to long-term economic conditions. Similarly, the anti-Parris persister group benefitted by the exclusion of low-taxed anti-Parris "young men," who were too young to appear on the 1690 tax list.
A comparison of mean and median taxes of the pro-Parris and anti-Parris persisters (those appearing on both tax lists) with Salem Villagers in 1690 and 1700 shows that the pro-Parris group remained better off than villagers. Meanwhile, the relative decline of anti-Parris persister tax renders it uncertain whether the anti-Parris faction was, in fact, outperforming the general population. There appears to be good reason, then, not to exaggerate evidence of anti-Parris economic advancement.
To explore another section of the website, use the navigation menu. To continue to the Conclusions section, click Next.